richy

Are you in an fiber or DOCSIS 3 area? The 1 gig internet is only available to neighborhoods they've ditched the coax and ran fiber to the home.

In the UK they are trialling 1.5Gbps down 150mbps up over docsis 3. Docsis 3.1 should allow for even more (assuming this isn't actually 3.1 and they just aren't referencing 3.1 differently from 3.0) so at least that coax has some life in it still!

Are some cable providers switching over from coax to fiber for higher speeds rather than upgrading the headends etc? I think we have twx maxx headed here in the next year or two which should give us up to 300mbps down which honestly is plenty for now. 

You might benefit from an amplifier at that kind of range (just on the edges of reception)? The cradle types from wilson can be had for 100-150 depending on how much amazon thinks you want one. You might get more use from a whole house setup and an antenna on the roof though. Do be careful to check what bands the amplifier supports! 

There are reports on Carrier Aggregation on AT&T and T-Mobile so far. Verizon and Sprint are probably waiting for Cat 6 device market to mature before they activate CA feature. Verizon and Sprint will also benefit from 3x CA user equipment that is due H2 2015.

Whilst I don't think you are wrong, I think they are also waiting and keeping it ready to deploy as the next 'feature' to drive sales. Right now they are harping on about 'xlte', as soon as that loses impact and they need something else to spur sales they will roll out CA after giving it a name concocted by the marketing dept on a rafting expedition and bonding weekend on the LA river. 

I will smart you one further (don't ask where I got that from). My phone has become an essential part of my tool box. I use it for translation, medical consults, reference lookup, drug inquiries. For these purposes I don't need a bunch of bandwidth. i just need it to work. But I do use netflix and youtube during my down periods so having the bandwidth at these times is nice.

Thats pretty much where I am at also, although a different profession. One good thing I noticed which would negate others worries is that I believe both sprint and tmo prioritize metered data over unmetered on the network which seems fair. So nobody watching youtube on an unlimited connection would slow down anybody on a metered connection. Seems like a fair compromise!

Edit: I went to double check on the prioritization and it seems that they 'may' do this so my comment may be in error, apologies if it is. I will wait for someone with better knowledge to chip in. Tmo does have a policy of deprioritizing those in the top 3% although they again state it's a 'may', but its explicitly mentioned in the t&c. Sprint mentions top 5%. I could have sworn they also explicitly prioritized metered data in congested cells. Maybe I'm just getting old!

10 gb a month? That's a long way from the often cited 2 gb a month average.

Makes me feel a little less guilty!

I think as well the previous average included all phone users including feature phones and dumb phones which likely drove down the average. Looking solely at smart phones or even just as the smart phone penetration grows quickly that average will jump up a lot. Plus for two of the carriers it is tough to look at how their pricing suppressed usage. Only being able to afford 2GB a month and not wanting to pay overages probably held back a lot of people from fully using their phones when off wifi. A certain two providers probably wanted to keep the average low as well as it allowed them to infer that people wanting to use their smartphones more should pay exponentially more, allowing them to rake in more profits. To illustrate the point, go on verizon.com (after sprinkling yourself with holy water) and try the build a plan. They label 1GB as average use and 2GB as heavy use. Seriously? Yet they offer plans all the way to 100GB. It's just marketing spin to position the products to gain the maximum revenue. They get you in thinking it will only be X per month for 1GB then when you find yourself using 6 GB they can make out you are just using more than should be expected but will happily sell you the extra for <insert silly number> so what you thought was cheap is in reality a lot more expensive. 

Personally I would think 1GB per line is low, 3-4 is medium, somewhere around 5-10 is average and you'd have to be in the 15-20GB for actual heavy usage. And yes, I'm sure theres people out there who only use 1.44MB a month who will chime in that the rest of us are data hogs that are causing global warming etc.

i actually have verizon i get service in the pocono mountains and also i get swrvice on top of mountains

Same here,  I use a Verizon Lte tablet as a hot spot for the places I can't get a tmo signal. Works nearly everywhere but even the LTE is fairly slow in many places. Could just be the tablet though. 

 

I don't think this "starting to slip" is actually happening in any significant amount, and I don't expect to see much of it in 2015.

 

T-Mobile LTE as it exists last month (fully loaded with a nation full of subscribers) won fastest average network speeds in Denver, NYC, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Detroit (and tied with Verizon AWS LTE in Memphis). Those are just the RootMetrics reports released this past month, from some of the largest and/or most heavily loaded markets in the nation.

 

Barring a small handful of areas they are truly spectrum crunched in (like Cincinatti), any area they *want* to do well in, they can, and so far have done so.

 

This includes other areas in your state --- T-Mobile took first place in Honolulu for data speed, data reliability, data performance, and overall performance just 4 months ago - http://www.rootmetrics.com/us/rsr/honolulu-hi 

 

It *really does* sound like they just haven't gotten around to upgrading the backhaul in your particular area yet, and that may look like they are "slipping" for you because of that.

 

Luckily, that's typically the easiest upgrade to make happen. Providers in Michigan can literally double bandwidth on my lines in about 48 hours, with a single phone call and a faxed signature (if I had the cash to do so).

 

I don't know much about the situation in Hawaii, but I really can't imagine it would be that hard for T-Mobile to get you better backhaul on those sites, if they decided to do so.

Yes it is that simple here as well, assuming fiber is already lit there (which it is) and theres no capacity issues. That was pretty much my concern, if its so easy and they obviously are having peak issues, why not pull the trigger? Too many legacy non lte devices that they don't want to cramp into less refarmed spectrum? Just saving money? Honolulu probably is fast, they have 6 times our population  so they tend to get more lovin when it comes to any kind of infrastructure. They're even getting their own disney style monorail thing The tmo thing just confused me honestly, its not like the boonies were slow where it only affects few folks, theyre actually upgrading the whip aerial edge only deployments in the boonies to lte. Its 'town' that was suffering which by our standards is a lot of people. If it was so easy to do (which it should be) why not just do it?

Overall tmo is in a fairly decent situation right now, theres a good chance they can continue to grow and invest, however my worry was that the big two would try and drive the price of acquiring the low band spectrum they need through the roof. Theres a chance we may see a new sherrif in town in 2016 and if the auction date gets moved again we could see a change in rules to a more 'business friendly' (read bought and sold officials) situation where its a free for all over all the spectrum, in which case tmo doesn't really have the financial might of the big two. Sprint has spends, it's sugar daddy has deep pockets, would DT leverage itself even more to do the same for tmo. As I've said before, I am happy tmo is the right place for me, in my market, right now, but I have doubts about their future. The recent 'uncarrier' moves have largely been fluff, they have enough mid band right now but I have a feeling the low band is going to cost them dearly. AWS3 is approaching 40bn. If google or amazon decide to play in the 600MHz, alongside Dish, then it could get really messy.

Either way I am happy we have choices in who we can use! In some respects I am glad that the tmo sprint merger didn't happen as at least I have a choice besides the bad two! 

Sounds like the backhaul could be the issue in your area. I know that Honolulu for instance is a 20MHz FDD LTE market, and the backhaul seems to be in place there as HoFo users have been reporting peak rates north of 100Mbps for a while.

Yeah, we are on 5x5 here. They perhaps aren't throwing the switch on a wider channel until they can get the backhaul in. Given they can deploy the backhaul here quickly  (one of the few things that does happen reasonably quickly,  especially since they have fiber drops anyway so it's just a provisioning boost) I'm curious as to why the wait,  perhaps keeping their opex low,  boosting FCF prior to the Aws3 auction. It's going to be interesting to see what they end up with from that,  given the pricing they may not have many big wins. The NY 10x10 was around .3 cents per MHz per cockroach, 2.5bn is nearly tmo entire budget for the auction so I doubt they got it,  unless they are trying to make a statement.  Maybe they grabbed some 5x5 in important markets? I think Sprint was smart to sit out. 

My concern over tmo isn't so much that is terrible currently,  I can just see where it is starting to slip. Now if they keep adding subs at their current rate and can't keep up with the required investment they are going to fall hard. They need to buy and build,  Sprint just needs to build right now.

Low single digits lte, 1-3 mbps in Wailuku Town. If I'm wrong wrong I'm happy but it seems either air side or backhaul is hurting them.  Plenty of other places it's between 6 and 30mbps. Then there's North and East Maui where you get no signal but that's another story. 

I get your point, to some extent.  But shouldn't a network who does not throttle and provides a more truly unlimited experience also get a chance to show its superiority in the rankings?  If someone like Tmo gets to pretend their users devices are not throttled, it gets to unfairly compete in speed rankings against a provider who does not throttle.

 

If Tmo wants to throttle, there is a drawback to that.  And this is it.  Can't have it both ways.  And does Tmo need all the help it can get on network speeds?  Hardly.  If that's the case, Sprint needs all the help it can get.

To your first point. I guess it depends on what you want to get from the results. Personally I want to evaluate potential new providers so I want to see an apples to apples comparison. Is rather have it represent capacity and congestion rather than be influenced by capped plans which is a situation I don't intend to find myself in. 

Re the network,  perhaps but it's my impression that Sprint is in a far better position. It already has all the spectrum assets it needs, it just needs time to build them out. Tmo has a network which is already suffering in some areas (at least that's my experience here) and whilst it has plans it needs to find a hell of a lot more cash to get where it needs to go. Buying more 700 lower A, the aws3, 600MHz, building out it's 4x2 mimo network across all those bands and upgrading is edge network plus expanding its footprint,  all on 1/3rd the network spend of at &t or Verizon and managing to do it all before it piles in so many subs its network can't cope. The comments legere made about Sprint subs leaving and not coming back applies just as much to tmo subs, tmo has some great areas and some areas collapsing due to load. The whole reason I'm on this forum is that my bet is Sprint will be the better provider just as soon as NV gets fully rolled out here. I could be wrong but I hope not!

Plus after the aws3 had raked in as much as it has so far what's the bets cavalier et al start wanting a lot more for that 700 MHz? 

Not all home ISPs offer unlimited data, neither do all wireless providers. If T-Mobile is including throttled data over the data bucket cap (which is something I support BTW), speed tests should reflect what the customer is actually receiving. What's the purpose of a speed test? I know when I run one, I want to know what I'm getting. Not what someone else with a larger wallet could be getting.

That is the speed you would have been getting before you hit the cap so your comment makes no sense? A person with a larger wallet gets the same speed, just for longer. 

A speed test serves more than one purpose.  It's entirely correct to believe it should show the speed a person is getting at a given point in time even if they are capped,  I get that.  However,  the tests are also used to measure network performance and in that respect the uncapped rate is a more realistic measure. Ideally both should be given or the capped results should be discarded when considering relative network strengths. I understand why tmo did what they did,  I agree it isn't right for people who are capped to be shown a faster rate but I also agree with why tmo allowed the tests to run unthrottled. You don't obviously, I'm sure we will survive

I think we just have different expectations of what the tests should show and how we want the to work. I want them to show how fast it will be assuming I buy enough data,  i.e. the underlying network performance.  You think it should show an average of what everyone experiences and I do understand that, I just think it's less useful to me as I don't get throttled.  We disagree,  such is life it's hardly important. 

Lol ok my bad  

I disagree. A speed test is nothing more than a snapshot of user experience at a given time. Regardless of whether the network can provide 10 Gbps, if you're only getting 64 kbps then that's your actual user experience at that place and time. What if T-Mobile decided to de-prioritize all other network traffic in favor of certain speed tests in order to show the full potential of what their network can provide and then used those results to claim America's fastest network? Would that be not entirely unfair as well?

That is most definitely not the same. Using QOS to unfairly show the flat out rate of the network disregarding congestion is not the same as not taking into account a billing related restriction. The speed test would still be an accurate representation of the speed the user, or any other user could get rather than an absolute maximum. The speed tests are supposed to give an idea of the strength of the network,  not a person's wallet. Which is more indicative of what another person could expect to achieve,  the throttled rate or the unrestricted rate which still takes into account signal strength etc? If you are throttled to 64k or 128k that isn't indicative of the network,  the limiting factor isn't the network, it's your payment. I could easily turn your argument around and say if I get suspended for non payment and run a speed test and get 0 is that representative of the network? 

So despite this, they're obviously still going exempt Ookla from showing a customer's true speed at that point in time if they're being throttled. Not surprising though. Ookla is what they hang their hat on when they claim tocean have America's fastest network. Can't have throttled speed tests bringing down their average and putting that talking point in jeopardy.

That's not entirely unfair. Both are legitimate arguments,  people shouldn't think they are getting faster than they are but also it wouldn't be a realistic measure of the networks actual speed if it took into account throttled speeds which are only there due to the plan they are on. I think the fairest solution is to give both answers. Tmo needs all the help it can get with network speeds  

On a semi related note, does Verizon throttle prepay lte? Just trying to figure out why it's so freaking slow lol  

Eleventy billion dollars.

 

AJ

Probably not far off! I can see it being crazy. I can also see the owners of the 700a that havent sold to tmo yet tipexing out the decimal points in their valuations. 

We could spend it on education (public and private), or we could have one hell of a luau! Or a Mars mission or a moon base. It probably all just goes in 'the pot' to disappear forever.

ok i can agree with that and i thought the fcc is restricting the other 2 carriers from get most of the spectrum

Thats correct. Maybe I'm just cynical but I can see a fight over whats left. It isnt just tmo and sprint after the spectrum reserved from the big 2, Dish, Google and Amazon could all easily make a play for it which could drive up the price for Sprint and tmo. Plus you then have the risk of speculators like Cavalier mixing it up. I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I don't see even with FCC help that they are guaranteed a low priced big piece of the low band pie, it could get messy. Also with the auction pushed back, will we see a change of guard in the whitehouse affecting things? Just my opinion

why buy aws spectrum its not great for the coverage only capacity and requires much more infrastructure to cover the same area... Then low band spectrum

Because tmo needs capacity ASAP in select markets and if it can pick up any additional spectrum for a fair price on other markets it will help with future needs if they continue to grow.  

Sprint only needs low band spectrum so it makes sense for them to miss this one,  continue NV and save cash for 600,  tmo needs low band AND any other spectrum it can get so they need to bid on anything and everything,  especially in some markets. Plus more AWS  means they can possibly get away with needing less 600 which is likely to be a bloodbath of an auction. 

Turns out it's little old T-Mule driving up the prices, in an attempt to troll the big two. I can just imagine Legere tweeting about it... "@Verizon @AT&T U Mad Bros?!? Frustrated yet? #Uncarrier #Attention #TMOrocks"

You are way behind the times,  tmo is now UnUnCarrier. They went so far uncarrier they looped back round. Their latest offer of a 'free' tablet (so old it's screen uses beeswax instead of lcd) that you have to pay for if you don't keep the line rental for 2 years. Smells a lot like a subsidized tablet,  not very uncarrier! 

The auction looks amusing,  maybe tmo and dish will push up pricing to try and hurt the big two enough to slow them in the 600MHz auction?  It will be interesting to see who ends up with what! 

#3 sounds about right lol Maui County 'only' has about 180 K people across 3 Islands (and 2 more uninhabited ones) so we don't rate the same as Oahu. We do have what feels like 2 million tourists at any given time which seasonally kills certain cellular networks. 

Sprint hasn't shown much love here either,  I don't blame them given the permitting system but it's basically a 12-14 month wait for most of the permits they need so I find it odd that tmo and Sprint don't have more permits filed given both networks have a list of upgrades to do.  I can see tmo not wanting to spend anything it doesn't absolutely have to until at least the aws3 auction is done if not that and 600MHz. 

 

That might be needed, but it sounds like that could just be backhaul too.

 

A number of sites haven't had a backhaul upgrade since the HSPA+ days. So, somewhat similar to the "slow B41" sites, a number of TMO sites only have 50mbps or so to share between multiple channels of HSPA+ and LTE (source - fiercemobileit). On these sites, 10x10 LTE is typically still more than enough bandwidth, but the backhaul severly limits usable data speeds/capacity.

 

That's still congestion, obviously. But it's easily solvable. Neville Ray could call Bright House / Zayo / etc tonight and double the backhaul to some of these sites in just a few days. The line has more capacity, just that no one's paid for yet.

 

The permit issue is a little bit of a red herring in some cases -- they could add extra backhaul and 15x15 LTE (assuming they have the spectrum) and never actually physically touch the site.

Thanks! Yes backhaul certainly could be an issue here although it would be one I thought they could easily fix.  Permits are an odd one here,  changing channel widths wouldn't need one add you say, same for most back haul additions but would they need additional panels for the 700MHz? The permitting system is rather strict here,  even changing a hand rail outside a restaurant required a change of elevation permit Anything close to the ocean needs to be at least evaluated for a Special Management Area permit and most cell sites locally are on hotel roofs within SMA zones. 

Any guesses what could be holding them up on wider lte channels if it's not permits or backhaul?  Just not wanting to spend extra on backhaul?  Too many legacy HSPA only devices? Or just too much to do and not wanting to rush stuff?  

I've only paid for a sim once for Verizon ($6 on fleabay) for an lte tablet (as an aside I was shocked how poor the Verizon experience was). Sprint waived the 'activation fee' as did tmobile when I joined. Years ago I got a tmo sim when I visited the us (back when edge was as fast as it got) and the cost of the sim was applied as credit.  Not sure what you actually have to do to pay for a sim. Perhaps it's like paying the sticker price for a car, someone does but most don't? 

Latest on tmobile s network here is basically a slow decline in speeds. No network upgrades in the near future (based on permits). Lte in a few locations gets down to 1-2 mbps. Tolerable even for video but doesn't bode well for the future. Traditionally fast areas are still 20mbps+ offpeak but now frequently 8 mbps at peak. It will be interesting to see how it continues if tmo keep adding subs at their current rate without adding more capacity. Still no word on a 700MHz purchase from cavalier. I see their list of upgrades to do growing longer all the time. They need to get their ass in gear pronto and at least get the 15 X 15 running here to deliver capacity in congested places then the 700 for building penetration and some additional rural coverage along the coasts at the edge of towns. Once Sprint gets everything rolled out here there should be an exodus back from tmo if this decline continues. 

All of the po' people in the TmoNews comments section are up in arms -- because they now cannot afford to get their latest flagship smartphones.

 

 

AJ

Reading those comments made me laugh. Tmo (and any other company) wants your business,  they aren't going to turn away money unless the odds are strongly in favor of it going south for them. We are taking about fairly small amounts of money,  not car loan or credit card type balances, and they are targeting just two particularly poor credit groups. It's also worth bearing in mind this is for luxury items (smart phones, tablets and watches etc) that could easily be replaced by a $50 smart phone. Nobodies kid is going to starve over this, you just got to take care of your credit if you want to use it. Nobody should be shocked that a poor credit rating would affect their ability to borrow. They even allow tenure to count which seems fair. Peeps just gotta have their iPhones

Signed a jaded ex debt collector. 

I've really wanted to like tmobile. I've tried switching a few times but ended up canceling. First time was for zero bars in my lab at work, second was for no data coverage at our cabin. Here in Phoenix Sprint LTE coverage is starting to match Tmo. Tmobile still has better speeds but it's not enough of a difference in real world use to make up for the other lack of coverage . I do really like how they basically changed the entire wireless industry with their uncarrier movement.

I've stuck with them although with the same issues (building penetration and rural coverage) but I use an old verizon tablet on pay as you go as a hotspot for the gaps. Sprint sadly isn't much better on either count here but they do have plans to change it whereas tmobile haven't announced the purchase of the 700 lower A here yet. Probably still talking to cavalier? about it. Rural coverage is tough, either company would need at least 2 more towers which wouldn't be cheap. At least with Sprint I could roam on Vzw. Can't wait to dump that tablet, sending money their way makes me feel dirty As soon as Sprint get 800 etc rolled out island wide it should make them the obvious choice. For people who never leave town they probably already are. 

Still waiting for a flat UHD OLED TV. Until then, videophiles don't have a suitable replacement for plasma.

Flat  might not happen for a while, although samsung are getting close with their future bendable screens which should be able to go from flat to curved (it wouldn't make any sense not to). samoled UHD should be fantastic although the sony screen was pretty good with their unicorn tears triluminous tech. 

What really struck me was the difference in the UHD sets, from genuinely amazing pictures to utterly abysmal and worse than FHD. You think if you were trying to sell a set costing between 2 and 5k (thinking of a specific couple of models) you would invest a little more in the presentation in store, giving them better stock footage.